the environment and the economy. at 8:30 eastern, the president and ceo of forbes, steve forbes will take your questions about the economy, federal spending, the deficit and jobs. and we will look at what nato countries can offer to peacekeeping missions as we talk with the center for strategic and international studies. ♪ host: speaker john boehner buying a compromise on the budget battle. the house republicans are reaching out to democrats with a proposal to cut $26 billion for the remaining six months of the fiscal year, on top of $10 billion already in law. it is not as much as many

conservative republicans would like to see. first, we want to begin this morning getting your thoughts on the assassination attempt on the late president ronald reagan. today marks the 30th anniversary of that event. where were you when that happened? how did it change your life? if you are a democrat, and they all [unintelligible] readin this headline from "usa today," the article says this --

underneath that article, a separate paragraph says secret service splices big after that assassination attempt. it lead to lasting changes in the way the secret service protect present -- protect presidents.

it also says the agency incorporates far more technology for protecting the president against threats. agents performed flawlessly, according to a book on the assassination.

we will talk about this with you today, where were you that day? if you are not alive then, what you think about that assassination attempt of former rig up former president ronald reagan? how that has changed how we protect the presidency? a democrat from silver springs, maryland is the first. caller: i am truly disturbed and puzzled by the attention given to ronald reagan. this is being spoken of in the context of other attempts on presidents live, that would be one thing. but ronald reagan really set in motion of politics of fabulous sum and of lying, and that if you say something in the times, it was actually true. he really harmed our country.

i like to talk about that more than this sort of sainthood of ronald reagan. he did a lot of harm that we still suffer from. host: but do you have any thoughts on how that change the presidency going forward? not just about ronald reagan, but the presidency? caller: i think that we should look in our society as a whole. i think that we should look at how ronald reagan policies and policies like his have been detrimental to our society, and how that leads to greater dangers for all of us. i put that assassination attempt into the context of our greater society, and not just making a possible ronald reagan. we should pay attention to the damage that he did, not so much the damage done to him. host: a republican from

pennsylvania. caller: i think ronald reagan was nothing but a fake, an actor. that was just one of his acting jobs. he was not even shot at, i do not believe. host: you do not believe he was shot at? caller: i do not think he was even harmed. he was just a movie actor. and a poor one at that. host: more from "usa today." hinkley attempt compelled the secret service to examine every aspect of its performance.

these were some of the changes that were put into place after the assassination attempt on ronald reagan. we want to get your thoughts on that this money, whether gun laws or how would protect the president, or as "usa today" reports, the public outcry over the insanity defense and how that was changed after it was used for hinkley.

we will continue to talk about that this point. richard norton smith is joining us on the phone, presidential historian. let me ask you, how did this change the presidency? guest: there are two ways to respond to that. you just outlined some of the ways in terms of increased security. the way that any president exists cames that much harder to penetrate. to the frustration of presidents, they often feel that they are cut off from the real world. i think some of that is post- 9/11, but a lot of it goes back to the events that you're talking about today. it also changed the presidency in another way.

for ronald reagan, i think it was an event -- and the reagan presidency, i think it was a seminal event. remember, president reagan only in office about 10 weeks at that point. he had been elected, to be sure, decisively in 1980. but there was a sense that in some ways he was elected in part because it represented a change from the status quo. a lot of people did not really know ronald reagan. or at least a lot of people thought they knew ronald reagan. what we saw on march 30, whatever you think of the man's politics and what ever you think of his historical legacy, you saw an extraordinary display of what hemingway called grace under pressure. you saw this man, who we now know was close to death, who was

making jokes, who demonstrated remarkable courage. there are personal qualities that people saw that day that no political campaign, for example, had brought out, that no political commercials had brought out. it is it for a moment -- the great irony, people talk about ronald reagan as an actor, but the great irony is that it was that day when he was not acting. we get all put ourselves in his shoes. we can all imagine how would we react if we were in a situation like that. i think it was transforming in defining has an event. one consequence was that it produced an enormous upsurge in

reagan's polls and in his political capital. reagan used that, very skillfully in part to get his economic plan through congress. there were all sorts of ramifications here, but first and foremost, i think it was the personal drama that the find ronald reagan for a lot of people, including, i would say, a number of people who never voted from -- for him but came away from this horrible day with a whole new sense of the man and his character. host: we are reading in the papers that the sacred service told ronald reagan that when he was not exiting, he had to do so quickly. he could not stand around talking to folks. did he express that takes -- that frustration?

guest: i think that was the bubble. he was a very gregarious person. i directed his library for a while and he likes people. he like campaigning and all of that. i think it was a source of more than of a little frustration. this job in some ways prevented him she whispers confining in new ways that no president can be prepared for, but particularly someone like ronald reagan, because it changed on his watch. there was an appreciation, an enormous appreciation for the secret service and what they do, but i think it was frustrating in some ways. host: richard norton smith, as

had a library there, can you look back at how this occurs service reacted after that? had you seen some of those conversations, some of the memos written by the secret service after this event, and how they would go forward? guest: it sounds like a wonderful book, this book that is just now. but i have not seen the documents. very quickly, i wanted to -- i once asked president reagan how it felt to be shot. the last time i saw lime was 1996, a year-and-a-half after he had written the letters to the american people in which he had disclosed his alzheimer's. he came up to the library, and we have a wonderful visit. afterwards we went over how to a place for lunch. it was about a 10-mile trip. sitting in the backseat of the

car, and higher realized this was probably the last time i would see him. i do not know why i asked him, mr. president, i am curious, what did it feel like to be shocked? how and he started describing it. and i realized he was not talking about the hinkley incident at all. he was talking about the movies. hollywood. how he had lost his hearing, he had significant hearing impairment, because as an actor of one point, how the gun had gone off very close. that affected him in some ways. how i never did get to hear him talk about march 3, 1981. it was something that he probably avoided. host: richard norton smith, thank you very much for your

time. we will go to a democratic in los angeles. what are your thoughts, 30 years later, the assassination attempt on former president ronald reagan? caller: i thank you for holding this time to dialogue. -think its deplorable how that someone would want to take the lives of our president. that is sad and unthinkable. hi think that shows that this has to the eliminated. people do not feel like it is respected, it how and what is the role of the united states in our society today in a world economy, and looking back into time, in global policies, living in an economy where there is a u.s. and in the u.s.s.r., what

is the role in this adulation? who has access to arms and weapons? for example, what is going on in mexico right now with the house world arms trade? host: we're talking with all of you today. you can call in about your thoughts on the 30th anniversary of the reagan assassination attempt, or you can send as a tweak on twitter. there are the addresses. we are also asking the question on our facebook page. if you want, you can continue that conversation on that side as well. montana on the republican line. caller: i am a republican. host: and you are on the air.

caller: high among the republican committee of great falls, montana. i am a republican. hello? host: you have to turn your television down. that is why we're having confusion here. an independent scholar, that morning. caller: i am 27 years old, so i was born about that time. but i went for social studies of that nature. there was a lot of racial disparity, well our clients and all day, to make the majority of white folks look get blacks as lazy, did not want to work, which is a lie. the thing with him, most of those guys ended at getting a pardon by george h.w. bush, which allowed the cia to bring crack and cocaine into most of

the inner cities in this country. it and still to this day, the government as like they do not know what happened on how all these drugs is came into the city. host: a republican in baltimore, good morning. caller: my name is bob and. i remember where i was when ronald reagan was shot. i was in college and the university of maryland. how was there, i was very sad and -- while i was there, i was very saddened by the shooting of from reagan. it would've been more tragic if he had actually died or had been killed, because many of the policies that he established during his presidency are still with us today. including, not the least of which, you're reminded us of the constitution how really saying as opposed to the way is being

misused -- it is being misused by virtually every area of government today. he is reminded us of that today. i think he was the greatest president of the 20th-century. host: why do you remember where you were on that date? how does it have to do with more of your political leaning toward on reagan? caller: he was the first president of that i voted for. it was definitely my pedicle innings. i was 21 years old at the time. -- my political leanings. how was 21 years old at that time. quite honestly, i cannot believe that someone takes that kind of drastic action against the president's, because they did not like what he was doing. how host: and independence from

georgia. caller: longtime york, first- time caller. how do not recall exactly where i was on that date. as you mentioned, a couple of assassination attempts how few years before. obviously if he had died, i think more of us would remember it has many of us of us -- as many of us to the kennedy assassination. however, the legacy and what i remember of the whole incident is how he stood true to his convictions, especially concerning gun-control. as you recall, the brady bill was named after his press

secretary who was seriously injured in the incident. even though i am sure he was very fond of his associates, he himself was in jeopardy in the incident. his constitutional awareness and his soul being when not allow him to support the bill. i do not recall exactly -- he did not come out for at. i am sure that if he had stood up to it, if he supported it, i think it probably would have passed how that hardly any objection. but he did not. you realize that the

constitution was much more important than any individual can come even the chief executive of the country. host: the secret service agent that pushed the president into the limousine after he was shot and examined the president, he writes that he's in usa today. hi ho "lord, let him live," is what he prayed that day. i want to show you what he said about examining the president in the limousine that day. >> i began to examine him. hall is lay it was and is that -- it was obviously an assassination attempt. i ran my hands under his coat, how the back, the armpit area, his head and everything. there was no blood on my hands.

to my when i radioed back ship leader that he rawhide was ok. i assume that because i did not find any blood on my hands. he was not healing to bed. but between that location on connecticut avenue and dupont circle, he said, he reached into his pocket for a handkerchief, and it was a bright red blood. it was auctioned in natick, it had been in his lungs and was now in his mouth. it was a lot of that, how funded, spilling out of him on to his code. i made a quick decision and said, i am taking you to the hospital. host: a recent events at the newseum. go to our website, c-span.org,

if you are interested in the event. it will air tonight. you can find out when the in on what network. you can also watch it on our website, c-span.org. montana, a republican, hold your thoughts on this this morning? please go ahead with your question or comment. caller: the thing i'm most liked about ronald reagan how is when he took a bullet for his country. host: hoecake. -- ok. i think that was it. we will go to a democrat in michigan. caller: ok. i think there's a lot more important stuff to be discussing this morning but rather than

something that happened 30 years ago to a second-rate actor. some of his programs that he instituted during his presidency horan fax still with us to this day. -- are still with us to this day. no air traffic controller in how to slice the came down. host: we will continue talking about this. but there are other issues happening in washington this week. hall reporter joining us on the phone from the political. let's begin with the headline in politico. negotiations stall in spending showed them. what is the latest? we are hearing that john boehner has come up with $26 billion in cuts for the remaining six

months of this fiscal year, and others are reported that he is reaching out to senate democrats. guest: senator harry reid has come up with those cuts on the democratic side. their discussions have and a lot of pessimism out there. democrats are not convinced that they will be able to find a compromise to prevent a government shutdown when the next deadline comes a week and half from now. the question is whether there is enough patients, especially on the republican side, to continue to do this on a temporary basis. there is a lot of demand to get this settled in the long term. host: what happens next? are the two sides meeting? his harry reid scheduled to meet with john boehner to hash this out of? guest: i am not aware of the

schedule but the meeting should be going on. yesterday it appeared to be stalled and there was a call from vice-president joe biden to smooth over some how frayed nerves. negotiations are continuing. how we are seeing potential division in the republican ranks with the house majority leader seeming to distance himself last night from the speaker's position, saying he is not aware of what the compromise on the table. how that is like last time, the possibility of a division in the house republicans how that could derail whatever of leadership is trying to put together. >> to continuing resolution expires next week. why are you hearing from the conservative republicans -- what are you hearing from the conservative republicans elected with key party support? guest: they are saying the same thing all along. they do not want a compromise.

they came with a mandate to cut and they have proposed cuts. some of them might like to see more cuts. they do not want the budget of that number. -- to budge off of that number. host: how we are reading in the papers this morning that many conservative republicans are insisting that any sort of deal riders, policy provisions dealing with planned parenthood or the epa. guest: another potential obstacle looming here. these policy riders on contentious social issues how hard opposed by democrats and republicans say that even if they can find a number they agree on on the spending, they will insist that these policy positions go forward.

harry reid is clear to concur -- ready to consider them, and not sure what that means. but that is another obstacle looming here to reaching a deal. host: thank you for your time this morning. this is how other front stage -- how another front page story from the political. -- from the politico. i want to sell you a couple of the tweets of the last couple of hours. schumer says this. if you go to eric cantor's twitter page, he is responding to what senator reid and senator schuman said. naples, florida, michael in the

democratic line. caller: i remember very distinctly. i it just graduated from college and now was backpacking in south america. a friend and i were staying in an isolated place in ecuador. the first time i was never out of the country, i was naive about american politics. how. it was a very european crowd. a lot of ecuador aeons. he had not only been shot, according to the radio, but he had been killed. i was a little restaurant there -- at a little restaurant there. immediately sun came up and cheered. so did many ecuadorian. of course, i was absolutely

astounded that the response, but as i say, i was very naive about how as we as americans worked received at that time. how -- were perceived at that time. i lived through that entire a theme a political assassination is a young person in this country. it was not unexpected to hear something like that. how high was amazed by the response. he caused me to explore why people felt that way. and that is my comment. host: to omaha, bill, and attended college. caller: we appreciate the service you give our country. how how was sputtering out on an acting career and i remember hearing about the reagan assassination. one of the impressions that comes back to me is that at least for the first 24 hours as

though, it was very downplayed by the media that he was ok, lightly wounded. amazing to hear stories about how close we did come to losing him. the other comment i like to make, and this is part of one of the major fault lines in our american civilization, mental illness. we have a lot of mental illness in this country, particularly among younger people gather with the availability of firearms and i'm afraid it will be a matter time before we see another shooting. the politicians will be safe from it, probably, because the secret service and police forces have finally learned that it is dangerous out there for a public figure. how host: bill from omaha, nebraska. we're talking about the 30th anniversary of the assassination attempt on ronald reagan. if you look at the constitution, there is a line of

secession if an incentive successful. the vice president would take over control, and the speaker of the house, the president pro temporary the senate, the secretary of state, of treasury, and then the secretary of defense. presidential assassinations in the past -- abraham lincoln, 1865. james garfield, when you mcanally, and john f. kennedy high in 1963. past presidential assassination attempts -- and jackson, franklin roosevelt, harry truman, 1915. gerald ford how, two assassination attempts. and of course ronald reagan, march 30, 1981. james, a democrat in new mexico. caller: however like to say that

, in ronald reagan was shoct was in a restaurant eating. that is were i was when he was shot. it was really something to hear. thank you for taking my call and have a nice day. host: we will continue talking about this for 15 minutes. the syrian president bashar assad is speaking right now to parliament. that is courtesy of al jazeera. we will let you know what he is saying. there has been some speculation about what he will say in today's address. whether or not he will lift an emergency law, or whatever it is he was said. courtesy of al jazeera this morning. massachusetts, joe, an independent scholar. caller: ronald reagan, what a disgrace he was.

may he burn in. he used a drug runner, ollie north, that on his own drug war with the iran contra affair. he was an absolute disgrace and ignore the constitution completely. host: of peace in the "usa today." on that day, he was not scheduled to be with the president. it was early in this term and it was never good for the head of the detail --

i instantly pushed the car into the car -- the president to the car. the president extended his arm to block his fall and we both landed inside the car. the president thought that his chest that hit the transmission riser. an agent jumped in and slammed the door behind this. i yelled that the driver could move out fast to the white house. as i helped the president coming to a seating position, i noticed the mark on the bulletproof window. it had stopped one of the would- be assassins' shots. i saw people down on the sidewalk. i checked the president for blood, working around his body.

he realized that the president had coughed up some blood. he read directed the driver to the hospital that day. what are your thoughts on this? a republican in new orleans. caller: good morning. at the time i was playing handball with a group of college students that i had been teaching as i remember where i was with the terrible assassination with martin luther king and the kennedys and the assassination attempt on pope john paul ii. there was an incident that think was very instructive for today. when president reagan went into the hospital and was informed he needed surgery, he quit the the hope that the doctor was republican. the doctor responded, mr. president, we are all republicans today. i think that in today's climate, so filled with the politics of personal destruction, and our

rhetoric is often filled with so much heat and not too much light, i think that ronald reagan, one of his legacy is, it is the ability not to personalize and the importance of humor and the ability at the end of the day to sit down with adversaries and realize that we all really want a better country and a better future. i think that ronald reagan inspired that. i think he was truly a great american and really a great president. i certainly miss him, and thank you very much for taking my call. host: we will go to boston, an independent collar. caller: being a product of reagannomics, i was born in 1981, but i know what have occurred since then. he is light the progeny of his actual events that he went

through. anyone see capitalism, a love story by michael moore? it is actually true. i wish he had gone ahead and wrote. the stuff that he implemented created a permanent underclass. host: the guardian report that the nato coalition fighting in libya is ready to armed rebellion if gaddafi clings on to power. related to that story line this morning, here is the "washington post," saying that gaddafi's forces pushed back leader -- rebels. it says that although leaders pledged humanitarian aid to protect civilians. it would be up to the libyans themselves.

in this piece, it says that the french government has led the international charge against muammar al-gaddafi has placed mounting pressure to provide assistance to the rebels. president obama said tuesday that he would not preclude the possibility of arming the rebels. it was in an interview with nbc. obama said, i am not ruling it out but i am not ruling it in. the same article said that clinton like obama did not discount the possibility of arming the rebels. it says that she thought that

the step would be illegal. -- would be legal. that is the latest on what is happening in libya. also this morning, yesterday we told you this, but confirming from the pentagon, the price tag is at $550 million. was your thoughts on the thoughts of -- the anniversary of the reagan assassination attempt? caller: i was 40 years old when this happened. i remember him being the friend of the rich and and and burgs and all the big parties.

the rich having more than the middle class. one of the things was that he came on his radio show and talk about of $50 a month welfare recipient cheating the government. and i am thinking at the time, your friends are messing with their taxes a thousand times deeper than the $50 a month welfare recipient. and you spoke of a little while ago about the budget. i like to know why the media, the print media, and the televised media, does not address revenue. to talk about spending, spending, spending. the republicans are starting the peace, they have cut taxes, give tax cuts to the rich, and they take out of the height of the middle class. host: the front page of the "

washington journal, cause of this morning. -- "the wall street journal." other economics, the front page of the "detroit free press," home prices the lowest in 1994. opec set for export revenue of $1 billion, the front page of the "financial times" this morning. president obama going to 8 fund- raiser. it was at $30,000 a plate fund- raiser in new york. caller: i have to tell you, i hope all these people calling in with some of these despicable comments take the time to go back and listen to themselves

and hear exactly how mean- spirited they are. for the most part, the people that are advocating this stuff are the same people that preach love and peace in all this stuff. the hippie generation. reagan, you can criticize him, i think he made several mistakes during his administration, but when it is all said and done, i would not wish anything that on the current president, nor would i wish the same thing on ronald reagan. i think these people should be ashamed of themselves. host: the ap reporting that the foreign secretary of britain has expelled five libyan democrats -- diplomats for their support for the gaddafi regime. 12 men and one woman made up the first congressional black caucus in 1971. that then it was a small club and the messages sent to the rest of the country was huge. these 13 legislators standing on

the steps of the capital had claimed their rightful place in washington, d.c. congress would never let the same. monticello, minn., a republican. caller: the last gentleman just told my thunder. i agree. i swear you have a room that is titled dummied democrats. the people that have been calling and and expressing how they wished the president had died? where you get these people from? i cannot believe that. i have never, ever listen to a republican call in and say they wished someone was dead. host: carol, anything else to add? caller: thank you for your program in your hard work. host: coming up in 45 minutes, we're going to be talking about federal spending and job creation with steve forbes.

but first, we will turn our attention to energy policy with gene green, the democrat of texas. we will be right back. nearly 1500 middle and high school students submitted documentary's on the theme. watch the winning videos every morning on c-span at 6:50 a.m. eastern, just before washington journal, and during the program, meet the students that created them. stream the mall anytime online at studentcam.org. >> every weekend, experience american history on c-span3, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. here first-person accounts from people who shape modern america.

the country's best known history writers over the past decade, and travel to important battlefield among about key figures and events. every weekend, visit college classrooms across the nation after professors build and to america's past during lectures and history. join historians behind-the- scenes at museum exhibits. the presidency focusing on american president policies and legacies for speeches and personal insights from the administration officials and experts. c-span3, all weekend, every weekend. get the complete schedule online. find out how to have them e- mailed to you. >> for more than four decades, the libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant, muammar gaddafi. he has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at

home and abroad, and terrorize innocent people around the world. >> follow what cleve leaders are saying about libya and how the process unfolded from the president and other administration officials, from the house and senate floor, and other leaders around the world all online at the c-span video library. search, watch, click, and share any time. >> "washington journal" continues. host: gene green is a ranking member on the committee on environment and energy. the me begin with and a piece for the cannot is today. within 67% of offshore leases are sitting idle. what is your reaction when you heard that? guest: when people talk about the amount of leases unexplored, there is a huge investment to go out and explore and produce it. you have to build a factory in

the gulf of mexico. it takes a while. the federal government gives 10- year leases, and they are paying rent. if we do not think they are producing fast enough, up the rent. let's make it more expensive for them. it is the farmer leasing 100 acres, and only having a few cows because of the quality of the land, just like the quality of the lease. there are other areas that are much more productive potentially, and even the seismograph work that you do earlier on that cost millions of dollars -- it is a huge investment. host: those enacted swaps could hold more than 1 billion barrels of oil and natural gas. guest: i like to see where those estimates come from. if we could get that oil and natural gas, we would do it.

you still have to get to the park -- a permit from the department of the interior. know what happened april 20, the moratorium and the slowness of the permits. we have hundreds of permits waiting for approval. host: some democratic colleagues of yours say that they should use it are lose it. guest: if you do not use it with in that in years, the only way to renew the leases to have production on it. they will lease it and do some work and they will say it is not potentially where we can make money on it. so they will turn them back. maybe they do not turn them back quicken. different companies have different standards. of major oil company needs to have huge pools of resources. some of my independents would be able to go in and produce on it. host: your proposal would be to increase the lease cost for these companies in order to get them to start moving faster.

guest: interior needs to look at that. it is not a congressional decision. they need to make sure whatever the market is, that it is fair. again, you have to build millions of dollars of infrastructure to have the least. that needs to be taken into consideration. host: if they hold the potential of 11 billion barrels of oil and more of natural gas, why then should the administration go forward with more leases for these companies when they already have leases? guest: you have to plan this over not just years but decades. a section of the gulf of mexico there may be three other sections in the process of planning to produce on. but they are looking 10-15 years down the line. we have not had a lease sale in the united states in months. we need to go out and planned

for five years or even 10 years from now instead of saying coming to have all of these leases, produce on them. they lease them, they are paying rent on them, and to get a permit which is difficult today on those leases -- do not blame the company because they have a permit waiting in the department of interior. host: summer saying the administration is moving too slow. guest: they are doing better. we obscene deepwater brigs and permanence in shallow water, but we still have 100 sea -- we have seen deepwater rigs and also in shallow water, but we still have 50 pending deepwater permits. do not complain that someone is now producing when you are not giving them permits. host: the president said that he would lay out his plan for

america's energy security at george washington university around 11:00 a.m. this morning. go to c-span.org, we will be streaming that light. if you are the united states president, what would our energy policy look like? guest: how would make a point to produce domestically and i think the president will say that. we need to cut down on foreign oil imports. we import a lot from canada, a very stable country and a friend. but we need to produce domestically, and that is some other way to move our vehicles, i am a big proponent of natural gas. we now have 100 years of natural gas in our country, reserves. it is cleaner burning, but it is domestically produced. host: concerned about the technology for the natural gas, the fracking.

guest: to get it out of the ground, that is part of the process. we have been fracking for over 40 years. i know in the state of texas, we have ground water control for decades. we have been drilling in you fracking all those years. if there is something we need to do, we can deal with that. oh, i supported to make sure that it does not get into the ground water. there have been some problems but that is because the piping that goes through the ground water strata, you do not produce gas where water is. it is much lower. there have been some problems, but there could be regulation and inspectors to make sure the piping is correct so that you do not end up releasing into groundwater. host: under president green, you

laid out oil and natural gas. what about the other types of sources? guest: i think we ought to have everything. i am big on solar and wind. texas in the last five years has gone more internationally than any other place in the world on wind. when does not always blow even in west texas. a standby power would be natural gas. i think the united states needs to take a stand on carbon. we can deal with it, but the solution will be a alternatives like wind, solar, nuclear, and natural gas is a standby. host: alice that different from what president obama is doing? guest: i think the president sounds good. but when we see what happens, since april 20 it because of the disaster in the gulf of mexico, with that very few permits issued compared to prior. if we need standards, let's put

them in place until the company's this is what you have to live by. -- that -- and detailed the company's this is what you have to live by. -- tell the companies this is what you have to live by. host: would this affect oil and gas prices in the short term? guest: nowhere else in the world today set aside slow leases like we do, and i'm talking norway, the united kingdom, and the huge reservoir is in the middle east, they produce literally everything that they can. then they depend on the market when to release the oil. if we produce a low, we would send the message that we would be producing in our own backyard. host: what you make of this headline about opec?

guest: it was created decades ago to be a control and energy prices. they want stability. they like it when it is higher, but when the oil gets higher, people look for alternatives. we will look for natural gas or hybrid vehicles. they do not want to make it too high because they will price themselves out of the market. host: your thoughts on the situation in libya and the middle east and how that is impacting oil and gas prices. guest: it's the instability of what is happening. we get all little energy and oil from libya. it is mostly western europe. that is why i do not want many u.s. resources there. we are glad to help our allies but i am glad the president has turned it over to nato. i really do not want u.s. soldiers on libyan soil. we do not have that interest there, except to support our friends to help us.

host: a democrat in bethesda, md. joins us. you're talking with gene green of texas. caller: i often hear people about national oil for domestic coal. but when it comes out of the ground, it is in the corporate oil that goes on the market? and it is subject to speculation that every other barrel of oil is subject to. guest: if we produce a barrel of oil in my back yard, you'll want that same price on the world market. depending on the quality of oil. there is not one price for a barrel of oil. there is crude that is harder to refine. but you want the same price that someone from saudi arabia for libya is kidding. if it is the same quality of oil. you get more on the market, it will have more price stability.

host: the president will speak on this about 11:00 this morning. we will have coverage on our website, c-span.org. an update on the situation in the middle east. the ap reporting that the syrian leader who did his first address to the nation since the protests in that country said that the protest were a test for the nation. as the into the parliament on wednesday, they said that we sacrifice for you. the ugandan presidential spokesman says that colonel gaddafi would be welcome to asylum in uganda. that footage was courtesy of al jazeera. let's go to steve in anaheim, california. caller: has anyone asked the

people putting turbans on the national floor, rigid turbines, on the ocean floor, you take the same principle as wind turbines, but you can put it on the floor, but you do not have a problem with the notion not moving. basically the major buyer of electricity is the oil companies. you have to take steam in injected into the ground to get the oil out. she told the department of energy is working on that now. it it will happen, it will be off of the coast of california. you would have it. the technology is just not there. if that is also an alternative. i do not think that will be a

huge extent in the foreseeable future. the base we do now is cold. if you are concerned about carbon, we need to move to something less carbon-remitting. host: oregon. d. ahead criti caller: as i recall, when there was an oil spill, the president had to spend time with his basketball team, and then have his wife sarah david baez -- serenade by a needle. i am wondering, and when will he get off this and actually allow drilling again? guest: there is drilling. if you are an independent, i am

worried. even from texas, and i believe in producing, but i do not fault the president for not cleaning up the oil. we had literally, thousands of people, including oil employe is, of volunteering. we did not have the technology on how to control tens of thousands of barrels. we have the technology now. we have one that could control that. we ought to be issuing those permits, using that, because we cannot control tens of thousands of barrels gushing out of a loose well. the president did the best he could. whether it was a democrat, or i do not think they could've done better. i do fault the up moratorium. even now there is slowness in getting the permits.

we need the permits issued in the gulf of mexico. host: this is a piece written by steve forbes. he is our guest coming up. he writes "permits are almost nonexistent. guest: that is not true. there have been other companies. refinery all of the in our district. host: how many jobs is that? guest: they are good union jobs. we have five refineries. we have expanded them. our country needs domestic, refined product. we need to have that, and it is

a job base, and a tax base. when it the jet fuel for the military and our district. host: did have any idea on how many jobs are dependent on the industry in your district? guest: it is probably predominant. if you aren't. -- if you are not directly involved, we have support jobs carrot of the port of houston, when we put the transport worker identification. , they thought they would issue 60,000 of them, and now there are over hundreds of thousands. host: you said they are good union jobs. do you know on average how much they are getting an hour? guest: it is more mechanized.

the pay is higher, but there is not as many of them. i have a chemical plant that pays 500 steelworkers that works 24/7, and they make plastic bottles. even during the tough economic times, they were still running three shifts. those are good, high-paid jobs. host: gene green prisons the 29 district in texas and is the ranking member -- represents the 29 districts in texas. caller: i wanted to ask about cold. is it not true with all of the regulations in the epa, with all the regulations and the scrubbers and everything, that when they take into consideration all of the co-lead

we use, that the standards are higher, and most of the stuff you see blowing off of the factories is steamed? also, what deal have to say about president obama saying that under hit -- what did you have to say about president obama saying that under his plan that electricity rates would have to skyrocket? i would imagine you would go along the with him. guest: i do not know if president obama is going to put a -- i am in a -- item from texas. the president and i have philosophical differences. i come from the energy-producing state. coal production is cleaner today that it was 10, 20, or 30 years

ago, and i hope it would be safer. i know we produce is safer than they do in china. we emit less in our country. it is still one of the dirtiest fuels to use. we need all of our sources of energy, but we need them not to pollute our atmosphere. host: let's have your take on the budget battle over the continuing resolution. this is "the new york times." there are policy riders. some of them deal with the epa. what to this day? she called with the first continuing resolution, if you had an amendment that cut the epa, it automatically passed. i did not support those. i disagree on what the epa is

doing for carbon control, but believe we need to grow into carbon control. we cannot put a scrubber to control carbon right now like we do on coal plants or refineries. the technology is not there. we have been epa that was created because of air quality and water quality problems. i want energy, but want to do it as clean and safe as we can. i did not vote for those amendments to cut the epa. host: if there was compromise language to delayed with the epa was doing, would you support that? guest: i am more to the legislation. there is a bill that will be considered this week or next week that would take away epa's authority on carbon. i think we need to delay it until we get the technology. i have legislation that will ultimately say it is a congressional decision because of the impact on our economy,

but i still think we need to control carbon. host: are you working with democrats, or republicans? guest: i would support some, but i will wait for republicans to have their vote. i want conversive have control of controlling carbon. host: what in congress do you support? guest: what i would like to have is a delay that would say epa comes back to congress with the study on how we can reasonably control carbon, how we can measure carbon, because of the impact of our total economy, the costs for energy could go up substantially. we need to make sure we do not run up the cost of energy because that typically goes

into an economy. host: let's go to caroline, a democratic caller in fort worth, texas. guest: to good morning. caller: i wanted to know if you are familiar with the story about a 16-year-old genius. i believe they say he won the science fair for the formula that he put together concerning methane gas. i'll understand that some of the scientists in boston area decided -- austin area decided to use his project. it was on the news yesterday. she is changing the methane gas into a liquid -- he is changing

the methane gas into a liquid, and he says it would drop the price of gasoline. gee, i actually had a relative that at an early age went to a math and science program at north texas university. it is a great program. you take 16-year-olds and they accelerate. i have not heard that, but there are so many great things that could happen. if research's there, we do not need to stick our hand -- had in the sand. i hope they do not cut funding. that will make our lives better five or 10 years from now, whether it is from methane gas to liquid, that sounds great. if it can drop the price and clean up the environment, it sounds like a win-win. host: this from pensacola,

florida. guest: i did not think there is any doubt that the minerals management service, they did not do the inspections they should have. right after april 20, they literally inspected every well in the gulf of mexico. why were they not already doing that? sometimes congress does not give them the money to hire inspectors and pay inspectors. there is a problem with revolving doors. if you are a very good inspector, we ought to keep you there. the industry needs to know there is aggressive enforcement, and that it is fair. if i do not know if it is fair if you just put a moratorium. host: some of the permits that have gone forward to exxon mobil and other companies, they

have had to confirm the they have the safety measures in place to prevent a block. are you confident of that? guest: there are two different systems. the exxon shell, that is trusted because it can control tens of thousands of oil been released. that was the problem. we have no ability to contain the deep water. now we have a system. there are two entities. if a company puts that in a contract to have that available, we need to make sure they are available when we have a terrible thing happened. host: let's go to gregg, sarasota, florida, an independent caller. caller: greta, thank you for

the earlier segment. i saw the clip of the shooting incident. i actually saw the blood hit and explored on the door frame. -- explode on the door frame. that is probably what saved his life. you can see it all in 1.7 seconds. that was interesting. congressman, this morning i just went on a wikipedia to look at enhanced geothermal drilling. that is the capacity to get into the ground 5-10 meters to evacuate the hard rock, kind of like a radiator that you build

under water. i read the mit and department of energy studies along the east coast, the east side of the rockies, on a plate that is stable all the way down to california. just for california, the ability to put new geothermal energy sites in better by the department of energy, credit suisse in switzerland, and anmit study, it is cheaper than coal, the zero carbon, and if you just use that to power california -- imagines that. there is one republican governor in utah who has experimented

with his state, selling power to california from a geothermal site. host: congressman? guest: that is one of the potentials. there are some department of energy studies, but it is all fairly localized. you need a transition of power. california would be ideal. we are working on that, but it is not as readily available in transmission as you have with a coal plant or natural gas plant. it seems like we could develop thermal power. we need every source of energy. we need to also make sure it is clean-burning, not just for carbon, but other emissions. host: here is a tweet .

host: i do not know how much they all, but if they are not paying royalties, we should leave it them. i would imagine they're up on the world -- on their leases. just like any landlord, maybe we need to look a. . host: how much can you tell us on average to corporations pay? guest: i did not have the numbers, but there are easily retrievable. host: millions, billions? guest: it could be millions over a period of time. the federal government? a lot of money from leasing in the gulf of mexico. -- makes a lot of money from leasing in the gulf of mexico. my goal is to use the money to hire inspectors. host: you touched on nuclear power.

here is the headline in "the new york times." i want to show our viewers and then we will come back and talk about more. >> what japan showed us is when the even less in longer than our assumptions, we should not leave the operators with no choices. when it lasted longer than their assumed duration, they were left with no options, and the reactor was overheated and damaged. we need to do a better job of increasing the reliability that we either restore power from the grid or the generators, but also provide the operators with something else should those very dedicated and intense efforts

fail, so they're not left with any options other than a miracle. miracles are great, but you cannot rely on them. we need to increase the odds that things are corrected before the blackout ends . host: what do you make of that? guest: i think we are learning from these examples. we are learning what not to do, and we are learning from natural gas. let's learn from what happened, the tragedy in japan. we need nuclear power, though we need to make sure we learn from that, extend battery lives, and make sure that the power -- problem is not replicated.

host: you would support the legislation from the democrat in massachusetts that would require american plans to have 72-hour batteries and 14 days of fuel? guest: legislation would be fine. i would hope that the regulators, when they are giving permanence, talk about some of the things they are learning, and put into regulation. we do not need to do it by statute. host: according to "the new york times" it would put a moratorium on license renewals. guest: we have had a defacto moratorium since 1979 until just recently. we need a clean-burning electricity. just a blanket moratorium will not help our country. we need to address the problem, do with it, and do it quickly

because we need that energy. host: our coverage of senate hearings looking at the japan nuclear crisis continues today. live, on c-span3, a hearing on nuclear safety with gregory jaczko, who was slated to testify. that is live coverage. columbus, ohio, and brian, thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. i made big renewable energy supporter. i am a conservative, and i value life. in my opinion, they are all the harm to the people. i am very aware of hydrofracturing. i am wondering why we are shoat -- sole is it so shortsighted. we all know there will not be any oil or natural gas in 500

years. why are we so short-sighted? why are we not looking to the future? guest: right now, we are trying to look for the next 10 years. we still want the lights turned on, whether it is in columbus, ohio, or is houston, texas. right now are its technology is there for nuclear power, coal power, natural gas. we are expanding on wind and solar. right now, we are not looking at more than 20% of electricity. host: john is an independent in concord. good morning. caller: in theory, opec as a whole, based on the whirled market, has them -- of the world market, have they not reduced

outputs to keep the world market stabilized in price? our prices at home to not really reflect prices at the gas pump. secondly, based on past history, going back to the 1970's during the oil crisis, we have at -- had no energy policy that seemed to fall off the cliff. guest: because opec does controls so much of the world price of oil, they do increase production of the available market. they could impact that. we need to produce domestic energy. whether it is a barrel of oil from saudi arabia, all from texas, or whatever, it will have a world price on it. i would like to produce domestic

energy. we needed all. host: does that mean you support the trio of house republican bills put forward yesterday? three bills were on belt on tuesday that would allow the interior department to triple the amount of oil produced and permit drilling off the east and west coast, and parts of alaska that contain the most natural gas and oil. guest: i support producing it. i have been there twice, and the people need the energy. host: what about environmental concerns? guest: we need to make sure we control the environment. we have the best technology we have, and that will change over time, and though we need the power. host: mobile, alabama, ruth of the republican line. caller: i am a republican

conservative. i would like to know why more is not been done for the use of solar by individuals like myself? over 20 years ago i was teaching my ninth grade physical science students how easy it is to change almost every energy into the other kind. any $3 calculator, and the $3 solar calculator is a fairly good demonstration of that. now, i have a house that i have lived in four years and years, that is not worth more than $85,000, but i have investigated the getting solar panels to create my electricity current i have been told that the only people that make that is ge, and it would cost $40,000 to install. they told me it would pay for itself in maybe 20 years i am 87

years old, so i do not think i will be around that long. however, i am very interested in getting the solar panels to create electricity, and i feel that the hitch might be in the electric power company. i think we do not want to treat our own electricity host: congressman? guest: solar is growing. if my wife and i bought a new house six years ago, we look at the option to do solar, and like you, the payout was 25 or 30 years. we need to get solar prices down. the issue is there are federal tax credits that you have, and also with the american recovery act, the stimulus bill, some of those are going away. even with those credits, it was

not economical. we need to look that bad. it needs to be both the federal government and state and local communities to say solar is an option, but it will not do everything. we need lots of sources. host: hank and our democratic lining in missouri. -- on our democratic blind in missouri. caller: nobody seems to talk about bio-fuel. i'm sold on it. it is simple. it is clean. it is home-grown. would you comment on the bio- fuel program? i know foreign aid is involved. truck drivers are using it. i think it would solve all our problems. guest: i'm glad you brought adopt. i have five oil refineries in our district, but also have

three very small bio-fueled refineries, that have been shut down because we did not extend the tax credits. biofuels is one of the solutions. it means so much tax support that is not just economical right now. it is part of the solution, and we are doing more research. it is a win-win. host: sean it is in duluth, minn., an independent scholar, and our left for congressman gene green. caller: i do not know if you have talked about the oil sands in north america. could you talk about that? i know there are major reserves.

is that something we could do? guest: white now, there is a permit pending from canada. there are pipelines coming. that brings canadian oil, a very heavy oil, too, for example, the gulf coast and texas care i'm . i am hoping they will issue the permit. i would rather get it from canada than anywhere else in the world if we cannot have it in the united states. there is huge potential. if we do not buy it, believe me, china wants to put a pipeline across the canadian rockies and ship it to china. host: gene green, thank you for talking to our viewers. guest: glad to. host: in our last hour, we will

turn our attention to nato, but first we will talk about job creation and federal spending with steve forbes, the president and ceo of forbes, and editor in chief of "forbes magazine." first, an update. >> british prime minister david cameron says he is certain there is a legal loophole to announce nations to supply weapons to libya's rebels, but stressed the united nations has not decided meanwhile, britain's military flew 24 sorties over libya last night. also, a thing of libya, the minnesota republican michele bachman said she did not report what she -- support what she refers to as the obama doctrine because it would provide a rationale for the united states to enter into one country after

another. she said she is against giving military assistance to the rebels fighting colonel gaddafi because she fears there are the type elements among their numbers. she is considering a run for the 2012 party nomination. a tokyo electric power co. spokesman says that after being out of sight for nearly two weeks, the president of the utility has turned up in a hospital with hypertension. meanwhile, new clear safety officials say sea water near the complex because radiation levels more than 3300 times normal. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> author, and playwright ishmael reed has written over 25 books, including "air inter do

laundry." joined our three our conversation. sunday, april 3, on c-span2. watch previous programs on bo oktv.org. >> for more than four decades, the libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant, muammar gaddafi, who has denied freedom, and exploit the wealth, and terrorized people around the world. >> follow what key leaders are saying about libya, and how the process has unfolded from the house and senate floor, all online, at the c-span video library. search, while clip and share, any time.

host: we are joined by steve forbes, former presidential candidate. let me begin with a headline in "the baltimore sun." "house speaker bidder faces hard choices. to make matters even more complicated for john boehner, tea party activists have said we think we should push for $9 billion in cuts. where do you think -- would you come down? guest: the more cuts you can get, the better. in terms of where the republicans should go on this is focus on the health-care bill. there was $105 billion slipped

into the thing that a lot of people did not know about. i think the gop should focus on blocking that, and say we need to revisit the whole debate and not just focus on specific cuts. most americans have very real doubts about this health care bill, and republicans should use the lever of this budget talks to get to this. you do not just get a small number. let's focus on the big thing, which is health care, in 16% of our economy. h cost in the short term, congress does have to pass everything, so your advice is to come to a compromise, that the conservative republicans agreed to less than $60 billion in cuts? guest: if they remove the $105 billion from the obama-care bill that was swept in, and that would be a huge victory.

we could look at this thing rationally, and moves forward toward getting something that i think would be real health care reform. in terms of the cuts, if they do not get the 100 billion thing out of there, they are missing a huge opportunity to go after something that is very big, destructive, and needs invest over all. -- a vast overhaul host: are you putting yourself in the teak -- the tea party camp that says we need to go farther than 60 billion? guest: they should not give ground on the $60 billion. they should encompassed bat with getting the $105 billion appropriation out of a healthcare bill. if they win on that, it is huge and overshadows any of the cuts they're proposing now. let's focus on the big thing,

and get this bill on the table again. i am not sure the leadership has the backbone to do it, but if it came to a showdown, i think the republicans can win that, and have a better chance of winning than simply on the budget numbers alone. people know there is a problem, but a lot of debt sales over their heads because it is incomprehensible -- 3.7 trillion dollars, it is hard to get their mind around that number. host: is it worth shutting down the government? guest: i think the only way you will get on the table is by being willing to go to the math on that. if the democrats realize this is where we are drawing the line, the republicans, then i think they have a big chance to win the a public opinion battle. host: the economists differ on whether there should be a cut and growth strategy. if you make these cuts right

away, immediately, what happens to the economy? but she called in terms of the cuts they have been talking about, absolutely nothing. when you are talking about a $15 trillion economy, it comes to about when. -- 0.101% of the dollar. there are other real headwinds on the economy, like the weak dollar, an absolute disaster, uncertainty about taxes, huge regulations on the health-care bill, which will impact small businesses, and the future of energy. they are real headwinds. $60 billion out of a $15 trillion economy? that is miniscule. host: and senator chuck schumer on the floor yesterday gave his view on what the tea party influence has been on the budget battle negotiations.

let's get your reaction after we listen. >> speaker john boehner knows when it comes to averting a shutdown, it is the tea party not the democrats that are causing the trouble. the only hurdle, the only obstacle in the way is the tea party, but for the tea party, we could have an agreement reduces spending by a historic amount, a deal that keeps the government to open. a tea party rebellion might hurt the house republican leadership politically, but a shutdown will hurt americans, all americans, much more. host: steve forbes, your reaction? guest: is typical of the democrats to demonize the tea

party. these are people operating at the local level and coming together for action. yes, the tea party is a blockage to a none deal in washington. if you would not even have the $10 billion they have caught in the last two continuing resolutions it said had not been for the pressure of the tea party. had it not been for the tea party, in december, they would not make a serious efforts to block a continuing resolution that would cap spending at much higher levels and they should have been. yes, the tea party has an influence, and most americans know we cannot have this kind of spending which is at a historically high level. we have never had this kind of spending. getting back to the battle of the budget, i think it is important for republicans to pivot back to health care, and start putting on the table drastic measures to simplify the

tax code, like the flat tax, with the austerity on the spending side, and incentive to get the country moving again, kind of the same thing ronald reagan did 30 years ago. host: this is "the baltimore sun" again. the tea party group plans to stage a rally thursday at the capitol. also, on thursday, former house speaker newt gingrich will visit republicans, and he has said he thinks further spending costs would be better than going back and gop principles. politically, do you think there is negative fallout for republicans if there is a government shut down? guest: again, it depends on how the debate is framed. when the debate was framed in 1995, the republicans lost that battle. today, we have a different crisis, spending is a national

issue, people know we cannot continue on these levels, which is why he into kabul, a democrat in new york, all loose state, has proposed a budget that was less than they were before. that would have been inconceivable. opinions have changed. they also pivot on blocking some of the worst aspects of the health-care bill. if they also combined with drastic simplification of the tax code, then i think they have a real high ground going into 2012, and getting good stuff done in 2011. host: republicans are reaching across the aisle -- to centrist democrats. gop leaders can afford to lose 23 votes before meeting

democratic help, which is why mccarthy reached out to leaders of the blue dog coalition. host: let's go to phone calls for steve forbes. laura, a democrat in pennsylvania. caller: may be a year or so before your father died, barbara walters have been the and -- had an in-depth interview, and one of the worst things he said was i hope we never see $1 trillion in the deficit. we know, and mr. forbes can agree, a look at where we are at today. i am finishing up an education

and schools peace. they are getting way out of wet on costs, and unfortunately, i hope one day, if it is possible, i can work for you or with the apparent i am honored with your time. . i laud you forever on your wisdom and your background. guest: thank you very much. it is a great white to begin the morning. my father was -- great way to begin the morning. my father was a remarkable men. during up with him was an extraordinary experience. in terms of higher education, i think there is a revolution coming because of rapidly rising costs, and the government standing back with some of their policies. i think you'll begin to see a

drastic change in higher education, where instead of going to collagen. four years, if you will be able to get your degree in three years. if you want an advanced degree, you'll be able to do it in four years, and thanks to high technology, research has sown -- showed that you learn more from the web than you do sitting in a lecture hall. i think you will see more of that kind of learning. i think you'll see real pressure on universities and new ones rising up to bring costs down. i think you can do it at a fraction of what it costs to date. great universities will continue to do what they do, and put pressure on others to change the way they do their modus operandi. host: what does that mean for "forbes magazine?"

guest: thankfully, we have a great website. we have about 19 million a unique visitors a month. in terms of reading a magazine, that might not be like reading the web, but it is very, very different than sitting in a lecture hall. in a magazine, you go at your own pace. i think there will be a print foundation, and we have gone into the wide world, and to the web is changing everything. we know what it has done to the media industry. i think it will bring about drastic changes in areas like higher education. i am not sure they fully recognize what is going to hit them, and in areas like madison, the wind is just beginning to transform everything we do. host: technology as a front-page

story of "the usa today." google says 2011 should be their highest-hiring year. what you make of that? guest: is not just the inventions, it is how you use the inventions. the big convention after world war two was the mainframe computer. the person who made the most money on the mainframe, they were not the people that made the mainframes. even ibm almost went down 20 years ago the one that made the most money was walmart, using mainframes and software to manage inventories and then managing better the supply chains. it is not just the technology.

it is how you use it. in terms of hiring, that goes to another thing, and that as immigration. we have a very real need for brains from abroad, and one of the reforms that we make is that hopefully we allow for that. if a kid comes here, and gets an advanced degree, which should put a green. in that person's diploma. host: a lot of topics on the table shop, a republican in san diego. you are next. caller: good morning, mr. forbes. maybe you can answer a question for me. why did this idiot give brazil to appoint $5 billion to drill for oil when we have it here? if they would open up alaska, we could get out of the deepwater. i could not even afford to buy

fuel for my pickup truck to apply for a dot -- job. something is wrong. host: two things are wrong. a critical reason why we face higher fuel prices today is this is what happens when you print too much money. the federal reserve has been on a bender since the early part of the last decade. he is been very disruptive, yet they get a by. congress does not know how to handle the monetary issue. in terms of drilling, there is a lot we can do you the united states that we are not doing. the slowdown on permits is ridiculous. in terms of brazil, two years ago the export/import bank made a deal with petrobras to

guarantee loans for offshore drilling off of brazil. if the deal is the company gets the money. , has to spend the equipment and services from the united states. next month, about $300 million of metal line of credit will be drawn down. i believe it goes to the j.p. morgan bank. the bottom line is that it is a subsidized loan. if they should default, that means american taxpayers are left holding the bag, not jpmorgan chase. so, that is what is happening. to get to your point, we should be allowing permits here offshore. bp was an outsider, and is trying to change its act now. we have the technology to do it here, both on land and offshore. host: what is your message to companies that are sitting on leases they already have?

ap reported that nearly two/three of offshore leases are sitting idle. guest: in terms of leasing, you can have a lease, and when you buy them, you buy a lot of them. most of them will end up being a dry hole. in terms of permits, you can not move on a lease until you get a permit, and the interior department has been dragging its feet. very few permits, even when the moratorium was lifted -- they have dragged their feet in allowing them. when you have uncertainty and what the permits are, that eats up capital. that is why some of these rigs have gone to other parts of the world. that is a self-inflicted wound. if we had a good process, there

would be a lot more activity offshore because at these prices of oil, it makes sense to do it. host: president obama will be talking about his energy policy this morning i georgetown university. go to c-span.org to watch our lives stream. james, tenn., independent caller. caller: i have worked hard my entire life, mr. forbes, and recently retired. i have worked my whole life, and really not paid attention in sending leaders to washington. now, i have had the time to sit back over the past year, watch c-span, our politicians, and what does happen, and it is like while america was sleeping, we trusted, and everything got out of whack.

around the beltway in washington, d.c., it seems everyone is doing well, but the rest of the country is not doing well. people like you, your father, we need your help. for my sons, my grandchildren, and my daughters, we need your help. host: steve forbes? guest: you make a valid point about washington doing well while the rest of the country is struggling. we saw the same thing in the 1970's, when washington rule and the rest of the country went through the ice for red disinflation, the high taxation that made it a miserable -- through the tremendous inflation and high taxation. it was a disastrous decade. the federal reserve was printing too much money, and it

really hurt the economy, sending oil prices through the roof. in the early 1980's, ronald reagan made fundamental changes. we need those changes today. make the dollar as good as gold. john kennedy, ronald reagan they endorsed the idea, and bill clinton had a strong dollar when he was a republican. george bullish and president obama have let the dollar go down the pervert -- proverbial you know what. i am in favor of a flat tax, were you can do an income tax on a single sheet of paper. health care, we need more free enterprise and competition with proper safety nets. energy -- opened it up. we have a lot of energy. we have seen this movie in various forms, and i think it is clear what we need to do.

host: new albany, ohio. good morning. caller: i have to take issue with people calling president obama names. that is very disrespectful. i never did that with president bush. also, the fact that you are from the top 1%, and you have no idea what i am going through, or anyone in my position. for you to try to take away the health-care bill -- i have a precondition. my son is under 26 years old, but he is over 18. he will go into the health-care bill and mess with that, and it will effect me. if every time i hear republicans, it is always about win, win, win.

i wish you would get together, and look at us as people, not numbers. it is always about winning and looking at 2012. today is what is going on right now in my life, and for a lot of other people. host: steve forbes? guest: in terms of people, we have gone through hard times in the media business. we have had to tighten our belts. we see it all around. nobody is safe in terms of the economy. if there have been drastic upheavals. in terms of president obama, i have never called him names. if i have criticized some of the things he has done and some of his policies because i think they are counterproductive. in terms of health care, the key thing is how do we devise a system where we get production of more health care? we are good at producing more software, automobiles, things

like that, but in health care we have this crazy system that prevents a lot of that. i want to open it up to competition to make insurance more affordable, and i have put out on number of proposals to make the safety net stronger than what we have today. you do not have to go to the emergency room. you have high-risk pools. make those work. there are positive ways of dealing with health care in the here and now. it is just like food. we do not have the government running the farms. we allow companies to grow the food, grocery stores and others to sell the food. people have problems getting that, and we have food stamps to deal with that. why can we not do the same thing with health care? i have had ideas, others have had ideas, and it will not be solved with what they did in the health-care bill.

there are some good provisions, but there are a lot of things i will make health care less available. but what will -- that is what worries me. host: pete is a republican in texas. caller: good morning, mr. forbes. i know greta was upset when the bush tax cuts were passed. anyway, if the federal government took 100% of what people like me may, over $500,000, it is still not paying for what obama has brought up in the spending of the federal government. you need to give us all break their, their (mr. forbes, -- a break, girl mr. forbes, how

will we get this straight? i am one of these guys that worked hard all my life, put four companies together, and it is being destroyed right now? by whom? it is the federal government, and more specifically the community organizer in the white house. he has never even run a lemonade stand, and he is going to tell me how run my business. host: steve forbes, who would -- steve, we like to see run against 20 -- see run against president obama in 2012? caller: i would vote for donald duck before i vote for president obama again. host: is there a republican candidate you are leaving --

leaning toward? caller: we need the government to get out of our hair. host: steve forbes? guest: i am looking into 2012 field, and one of the things we need to keep in mind is there is no front-runner. a lot of the new candidates who have not done it before, they will stumble at the beginning, but i think they will get stronger as the process goes on, and the gop will have a strong candidate in the spring of 2012. in terms of taxing, the caller is right in terms of piling on new taxes. we want a tax code that encourages people, or certainly doesn't discourage people from starting new businesses or expanding existing ones. that is why i favor a flat tax with generous exemptions.

a family of four, for example, would pay no federal income tax on their first $46,000 of income. the only way we will dig out of this whole, and the caller is right, we have never have these levels of domestic spending, is to get the economy moving terror that increases asset values, and makes it possible to deal with a looming liabilities. that is what we did in the early-1980's, and we can do it again. in terms of health care and social security, i think they're very -- there are very very -- very, very positive reforms that could change those there are much better ways of reforming those programs. >> from what you have heard and read so far, which one of the candidates to you think has the best economic plan?

guest: most all of them are still formulating their economic plans. i was impressed with the governor did in california with taxes. i was very impressed in india, in terms of reducing the size of government in a very detailed, systematic way for several years. he really made a huge difference there. haley barbour of mississippi is formulating a program. again, i am looking over the field. i am an agitator. i will be pushing these guys to sharpen their messages in the next few months. host: greg, democratic calller. you are next. i think we've lost greg. let's move on to doug, are republicans in nebraska. you were on with steve forbes. -- you are on with steve forbes. caller: i have two points i

would like to make. large corporations like ge that did not even pay taxes because they are using offshore hideaways, that should stop. the loopholes need to be covered up. number two, on the health care plan, i know from watching the senate and house there are a lot of ideas that are one cover all system to be implemented. each issue could be handled separately by itself one at a time until it is done right. i am in offshore diver -- i to be an offshore diver. it does not take long to drill and produce these wells.

guest: in terms of the drilling, the calller is absolutely right. you can have a very real save the measure in place and much -- and move much more expeditiously than this government so far is doing. to bring up an old issue, i have been to alaska where they want to drill. it can be done in a very sound way. we should be doing that. in terms of health care, there are a lot of proposals out there that do it piece by piece or try to lump them all together. one thing that i think should be done immediately is allow nationwide shopping for health care. right now we are restricted to states. i live in the state of new jersey. we have crazy regulations. we can get virtually the same policy in pennsylvania at about half the price, but it is illegal for me to do so.

i can buy a car in pennsylvania, but for some reason i cannot buy health care. have nationwide shopping and get real competition. host: the new republican senator from florida has a new piece in "the washington journal" this morning. he says this -- do you agree with the senator? guest: i think you will not get real reform on the entitlements, fundamental reform until we get a mandate in 2012, at which i think will happen. in the meantime, i think the senator is right that there is a lot can be done, such as stopping the worst aspects of obama care and getting real reductions in taxation.

in terms of using the debt ceiling, even if they put off raising the debt ceiling, washington has enough cash flow to pay the interest on the debt, paid the difference of expenditures in pesos security and medicare. we have some room. -- washington has enough cash flow to pay the interest on the debt, pay the differences of expenditures and pay so security and medicare. it least get the debate started in the country so you get a mandate to make positive changes after 2012. host: and he writes that he will vote to defeat an increase in the debt limit unless it is the last one we ever authorized and accompanied by a plan for overhaul of the regulatory structure.

we will go on to houston, texas. independent calller. go ahead. albert, you are on the air. caller: i have a question for mr. forbes. this goes back to president reagan. i know this is the anniversary of the time he was shot, but if we can remember the trickle-down policy started under his administration, although he had a democratic congress that he worked with, he got a lot done that he wanted to get done. he drove up, started this deficit trying to drive the russians out of the military. moving on into the 1990's, i ith we look at theoo

people with the money, the greed is what got us into this position here yen guest. guest: it was trickle up in terms of what reagan did. that is why silicon valley came into effect. apple and oracle flourished. they became the giants' they are today. that is what you want to do now to get the future of them starting from a very small base. in terms of spending, he did rain in the growth of domestic spending, despite a partially democrat congress for most of the time he was in. in terms of the military, he did ramp up military spending after a drastic slowdown in the 1960's in 1970's, which was critical in enabling us to win the cold war, which is why we have budget

surpluses in the 1990's. we did not have to spend as much on defense on this. one of the mistakes the bush administration made was they did not have that kind of break in slowing down of domestic spending, and certainly this administration has done nothing to shore up the battered u.s. dollar. and until you do that, we will not get a strong recovery. other opinion pieces. alan greenspan writing that the dodd/frank law fails to meet the test of our time. that is alan greenspan today writing in "the financial times." arofsky has a piece in

"the wall street journal." guest: on the dodd/frank bill, unfortunately in the name of preventing too big to fail, it codifies too big to fail, but which is why the large institutions are borrowing at a much lower cost than it would if they did not have dodd/frank. that is another thing that has to be revisited. it is very destructive, especially for community banks and smaller banks. in terms of the housing markets, the government has gone in the way of a recovery of the housing market. we should be on the up turn now.

the american people need 1.5 million new houses per year because of population increases, and because of wear and tear on old houses. we're building a fraction of that today, and most of them are rentals. i think by the government coming in and trying to force rewrites of the mortgages, the government has prevented the clearing. there are a lot of people who bought houses in the last decade that cannot afford to do so, and the best thing would be to get them out from the burden so they can put their lives back together and allowing lenders to work with people who may be temporarily unemployed who have a stake in the house and try to work it out. if you have equity in your house, even if the house price has gone down, you will fight hard to try to maintain what you have put in. that process has not been allowed to happen. the quicker the government gets out of the way, and the quicker

they do a fundamental reform of fannie mae and freddie mac, the quicker we will get a comeback. i predicted they did that within 2.5 years, we would have a housing boom again that, because the inventory would be soaked up at the low prices and we do need the 1.5 million new houses per year. housing can come back if they let it. host: jim from tennessee. go ahead. wereer: kennedy's cut mostly trickle up and they worked. it took us from 870 billion to three trillion 150 billion in debt in his eight years. bush took us to five trillion. all.on stopped all the da it roosevelt said to the media that

he saved your dad and his rich houses with graduated taxes. guest: actually for the record it was herbert hoover who almost tripled income taxes during the great depression and turned the disaster into an absolute disaster. cent unemployment from 50% to 25% unemployment. -- sent unemployment from 15% to 25% unemployment. kennedy's tax cuts were the same cuts that ronald reagan enacted. kennedy had a 22% across the board. ronald reagan had 25 percent across the board. they worked in both cases. both times the economy came roaring back. i hope we can do something even

more radical in the future and have a simplified tax code with the american people do not have to spend 7.5 billion hours per year filling out tax forms the equivalent of three full-time jobs. this is crazy. host: we will have to leave it there. thank you for joining us this morning, steve forbes. coming up, we will turn our attention to the size and scope of nato. >> an update on libya from china's president. speaking at a diplomatic meeting earlier, he called out the french president over the bombing campaign, saying force will bar resolve the conflict in libya. he added that force will only worsen the conflict that must ultimately be resolved by dialogue. china abstained from the united nations resolution authorizing the use of force. more on the united nations. the obama administration

announced earlier that it will seek a new term on the u.n. human rights council, despite concerns that the panel holds anti-israel sentiment. the u.s. had shunned the council and predecessor during president george w. bush's administration because its members included rights abusers. stock markets are up as investors are turning their attention towards upcoming u.s. economic data. yesterday the calmest person part -- the, as department said that consumers spent at the fastest pace since february. and those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> throughout the month of april, we will feature videos from the student cam competition. watch the videos every morning on c-span just before "

washington journal." stream all of the winning videos online anytime act studt studentcam.org. >> follow c-span on twitter. you can also join in the conversation and tweet questions directly to our washington journal dust. -- guests. get started at twitter.com/cspan. >> every weekend experience american history on c-span 3 starting saturdays at 6:00 eastern. it is 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. history bookshelf features the country's best known history writers of the past decade. travel to important battlefields to learn about key figures and events that shaped an era during

the 150th anniversary of the civil war. every weekend visit college classrooms as professors build into america's past during lectures. the presidency, focusing on american president's policies pulled through personal insights and speeches by experts. american history tv on c-span 3 all weekend, every weekend. get the complete schedule online and signed up to half an e-mail to you using our c-span alert. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back with stephen flanagan here to talk about nato special operations. what is the purpose? guest: it is to protect the

country states in their interest. in its purpose remains still fundamentally many people said it was out of business after the cold war because the original concern, the threat posed by the soviet union, had disappeared so why shouldn't they go disappeared? many wise heads counseled against that and said they had an enduring purpose to deal with any security threat to member states. just last year there was a new strategy, a new statement of purpose that pointed out how in this complex world nato needs of the diversified defense. we're seeing that applied in libya. host: let's go back when nato was formed to safeguard countries. why was it formed? guest: we have the beginning of the communist takeover, concerns about what the soviet union's intentions were. the united states came together with its european allies to

reconstruct the damaged parts of europe and protect democracies and democratic developments. the mission statement, the original mission statement in 1949 is a very simple and clear document. at the time, it was said that it is something that the omaha milkman should be able to understand, and indeed it is that simple. it disperse about protecting the values and interests states against any threat. at that time there was a real concern about a direct military threat to the territories, but it's early in western europe, and later on the nuclear war between the united states in the soviet union. nato was very much about protecting against an imminent threat. it was also about promoting values in dealing with other threats outside of the threat posed by the soviet union. the original charter never

mention the soviet union perce. it just that it is about an attack against one is an attack against all, and we will come together and take the necessary measures to defend each other. host: when you go to the web site and you click on the introduction, there is a graphic there that comes up the show's politics and military. why the distinction? is that something new that they have made a distinction between the political aspects and their military aspects? guest: nato has so it's been a political and military alliance. there is an article that talks about the common values they want to protect, as well as the interest and security. it has always been a political and security alliance. the u.s. has found nato very

engaged in the aftermath of the cold war, and even today, and particularly today as the european union continues to integrate the political intervention. nato has a seat at the table that interact on a daily basis with counterparts every day on important issues in the political security domain. it is not a substitute for interaction with the european union, but in the area of political and security relations with europe, nato is a political body that can also develop consensus. even before they took military action, they began to express concern about actions in libya. that was a clear warning to libya and others that if the alliance gets the determination together and decide to act, muammar gaddafi and other leaders know that nato has enormous capabilities back by the united states. host: member countries

contribute forces and equipment. it is an equal -- is it an equal contribution? guest: it is not an equal contribution. they give in various ways. they pay for funding. nato has a principal with costs where they lie. u.s. forces that are now engaged in this operation of unified protector, those are paid for by the united states. the forces that other countries, canada and denmark, they pay for the operations of those forces. the costs are shared, but there are common costs. we have seen reports of the nato being in the air -- airplanes being in the air, and

those are funded by the common budget. host: there is a civilian budget and two military budgets. how do they break down in total money? guest: i do not know offhand the total budget. i cannot answer that. but i think that it is several billion dollars, but you would have to break it down by the political and military structures, because they are distinct budgets. host: what is the chain of command, and how does it work? is it different from the united states military? guest: it emulates in some ways and has a lot of dual having a particular u.s. military better sitting in the assignments, beginning with the supreme allied commander. he has a double hatch. he is the commander of all nato

forces. he sits just outside of brussels. he is also the commander of the u.s.-european command. all the way down, a lot of the command lines, nato is a multinational structure. it is combined and integrated enjoying, which means it is a unified staff in joint among services. in each of these commands, you have a mix of various branches of the armed forces and different nationalities. it is a very integrated structure and brings together all the elements. if you look down at the level in this command that has taken over operations of this current libyan activity, the commander is an american admiral who was overseeing operation of the

coalition activities last week. now the commander has designated his deputy who is now in charge of the overall operation of unified protector. that gives you a sense of the flavor, and why it is an easy handoff. between the coalition or between u.s. military operations and nato it is a sort of hand in glove operation, because so many of the american military that have been engaged in the current operations are already integrated into the nato structure. guest: what is the role of the secretary general? guest: he is the voice of nato. he speaks for the member countries. he is supposed to reflect the sentiment and agreement between the countries. if you will see him articulating what it is the allies have agreed to -- you will see him

periodically articulating what it is allies have agreed to. he is the voice of nato, but he is not a decision maker per say. he is an international civil servant. he is a very capable politician and very dynamic figure, but one that has to reflect the consensus of views among the member states. host: i want to show what the admiral had to say yesterday. he testified on capitol hill before the senate armed services committee about what might a post-muammar gaddafi libya look like. >> i would not say nato is considering it yet, but when you look at the history, having gone through this with bosnia and kosovo, it is quite clear that the possibility of a stabilization regime exist, and so i have not heard any discussion about it yet, but i

think that history is in everyone's mind as we look at the events in libya. host: a lot of debate about whether or not there should be troops on the ground in libya. admiral talking about post muammar gaddafi libya and what it might look like. what is the difference between troops on the ground in peacekeepers? guest: i think what he was alluding to and others were alluding to, -- most of the government say muammar gaddafi has lost legitimacy and should go. none of the members want to see him survive, but what president obama said on monday evening and others make clear is they do not want to be looking at the west or the coalition that had evicted the leader. the goal of operation is to protect the libyan people from atrocities perpetrated by the muammar gaddafi regime.

there is also clearly a desire to open space so they can protect themselves and ideally take out muammar gaddafi. in the last day or so we have seen discussion where there might be a loophole or mechanism within the u.n. security council resolution of 1973, the mandate for the overall operations of the coalition, to say that you can in fact say that there is an arms embargo to protect, which could argue you can provide certain weapons to civilians on the ground to protect them. what allies do not want to do is think about a peacekeeping force where he survives with one half of the country and peacekeepers are protecting the people who have risen up against him. that is not what people want to see. when people talk about boots on the ground, they are suggesting that nato come in and not only

provide air cover for the rebels, which in effect is what it is doing, but go and be involved in ground operations with them. that would be a big departure. there is no consensus on that within the alliance. president obama has ruled that out so far in terms of the united states. that was one thing he was very firm about, no ground troops. host: is the u.n. resolution firm on that? guest: if in fact the fall of bengahzi had not happened, they would say we would have to go in and protect the people. maybe the coalition would say we cannot allow the massacre. that statement -- when he made the statement about going house- to-house and showing no mercy,

that is what galvanized to international community because they believed he was capable of that. i think you could imagine there being something like this to literally protect the slaughter or help refugees. right now there is no consensus to go in and beat a coalition of the rebels, and the rebels are not asking for it. they want to win this themselves. host: we are talking a nato nato structures and operations with stephen flanagan. caller: germany is one of the richest countries in the world. we have 60,000 troops stationed in germany. can you tell me who is paying for the 60,000 soldiers? guest: the german government does provide some support to the u.s. presence in germany, but that support is not just about germany, it is about protecting

our own interests and the ability to work as part of this coalition, and also to protect our broader interest. the number of troops in germany have been deployed to afghanistan and other places where we're protecting our interests. it is true that germany has been hesitant about joining the coalition. the governpresident is facing ay difficult election. they have been very cautious. what they did do is offer to enhance their contribution in afghanistan. they have 4000 soldiers there now. it is not that they are not contributing, but you are right, many people feel germany is not sharing inappropriate burden. but it does provide some host nation support to the u.s. forces that exist there, but most of the this is borne by the

united states. host: the german foreign minister is quoted as saying one thing is quite clear in has to be made very clear to muammar gaddafi, his time is over, he must go. independent calller, go ahead. caller: i wanted to read a headline for you. this is from "the london telegraph." the front lines of the bottle against muammar gaddafi regimes. my question is why is nato supporting al qaeda in the eastern part of libya, and how is that conducive to the war in iraq? and now we are supporting al qaeda against muammar gaddafi. host: that is the headline that

we have seen this morning. that is what we learned from the hearing yesterday in the senate armed services committee. guest: i saw that report as well. what we do know is in the french government and the u.s. government have been in close contact with the u.s./libyan council. we know there are people in the group that are former ministers of the libyan government, people that were dissidents in libya who he got rid of politically. there are a number of other prominent clerics and doctors and lawyers, peoples of the general society. and i have heard that is the vast majority of this group. al qaeda always takes advantage of turmoil, so there is no doubt about it that there may be fighters out there, but certainly nato is not taking

steps to protect your support what al qaeda is doing. what they're trying to do is protect innocent libyan civilians and hopefully allow for rebel forces, not al qaeda forces, the rebel forces being able to succeed in ousting muammar gaddafi. host: let's go to the next calller. caller: i wanted to make a quick comment about this mess and libya. president obama said operations in iraq, that they will withdraw all of the u.s. forces. you know, we need to get out of afghanistan in set of starting these wars over there in this region which is volatile and has been volatile over the past few

decades with the arab/israeli conflict. there has to be a better way to go about this. i think there is a better way of bombing them and attacking this country, which has not done anything. there is a lot the national soccer -- there is a lot of national sovereignty issues. we need to revisit this decision that has been made. guest: absolutely. there is no doubt about it, if you look the way the obama administration has approached this, there is concern about military over extension. the united states is still actively engaged in afghanistan and iraq. to take on another mission, and nato is involved in other missions in afghanistan, so it is not as if there is a lot of spare capacity to go around. that said, this is not a war or

conflict that anyone chose. this is something that began when the uprising in february started. it looked as if there would be another peaceful resolution of transfer of power to some kind of new governance. it went sour. libya was sour. muammar gaddafi target to attack his own people. the people suddenly felt they would be subject to a massacre. the international community rallied and said we cannot allow this to happen, because it would send a wrong signal to the rest of the arab world and the dictators all around the world but if you use enough force you can survive and the international community will go away. the duty to protect, which is in the u.n. charter, if nato and u.n. would not act in this case, when would they? when muammar gaddafi was making

statements of i will go house to house and show no mercy, and frankly seeing the things that he had done before with killing americans and other citizens as a part of supporting terrorism in the past, the things he a son to his own people, there was a clear concern that this was a humanitarian disaster, a catastrophe that had to be avoided and could be avoided with relatively application of military power. i think we will see this a day shift between looking like he is advancing and the rebels are losing, but i think we will find that this is a regime that has very little legitimacy. just as of the way some of the arab regimes collapsed in a matter of days, i think we may very well see the muammar gaddafi regime fold. i remain cautiously optimistic

about all of this. host: we will go to joe in brooklyn. caller: good morning, and thank you for taking my call. i am trying to figure out why we have so many problems in this country with fuel. we pumped the fuel from this country. and pennsylvania there is an oil city. why did they close our city down and go to alaska? oil and're taking the putting it in supertankers and taking it to japan. why don't they leave the oil in the u.s. that we have? guest: with regard to libya, we really get very little liboil fm

libya. it is a much bigger supplier to european countries. the markets are reacting to instability. they get nervous about how this will have fluctuations in supply and demand. the concern during the egyptian uprising, if the suez canal were to close in ships and tankers were not able to move easily, those are bigger concerns. that is why i think you see some of this concern and fluctuation in oil prices and energy prices generally. host: here is a piece that is on french 24's news site.

it says the special envoy is on the way to the rebel stronghold to act as an ambassador with a transitional national council, according to french officials. what does that mean? guest: the french have been very active in dealing with this, because it is making clear they are preparing itself to become the government of libya. this meeting in london that hillary clinton attended, it was very much designed to set the stage for how the international coalition, the broader coalition that are interested in supporting the political transition in libya. they are setting up this contact group. this will be the ones including diplomat whor difficul continues to be in contact with

libya. we do not have an ambassador in tripoli. he was withdrawn a couple of months ago because concerns of his own security and security of the embassy but all of the government's are trying to maintain contact with all of the libyans on idea that the transition council could become the new government of libya, and we need to begin planning for that now and not waiting for military operations to be decided. host: you said earlier that nato started talking about the situation in libya. i am wondering about syria and what nato is saying about this country. guest: everyone is watching this with concern. turkey obviously, they are a number -- neighbor of syria. nato has tried to develop

partnerships with some of the country's in the middle east, a particularly the gulf states. nato has been tried to work with them and has a regular dialogue. we are watching this situation with concern. at this point it seems to be making steps. he changed his cabinets and responding to the demonstrations. it is not yet at this stage where there is a military alliance. i am sure they're not thinking about acting yet. they are certainly watching the situation with concerned, as they did in libya. host: this is "the washington post" editorial --

let's go to dave in georgia. you are next. caller: i would like to carbon about the role of special forces. -- i would like to comment about the role of special forces. retired colonel david had to make comments about special forces on the ground treaty resolution. in 2007, general clark spoke of plans to invade libya. it seems it is very likely that plans to invade libya have been in the works for some time.

host: can we get a response to that? guest: i have not seen anything about plans to invade libya. there have been various contingency plans. there might have been plans on the shelf about doing a humanitarian mission, i do not know. and on the issue of special forces, there is no doubt about it, usually what military forces want to get in on the ground is special forces units with capability to get in on the ground and be sure -- we did in this case where there was an effort to not cause a lot of civilian casualties and make sure there were not air strikes that led to further civilian casualties because the mission was to prevent civilian casualties. so there may well have been that there were special forces

captured, but it would not surprise me at all if there had been some u.s. and british special forces inserted into libya to do this capability. as we saw with the downed american pilot, this is not a difficulty with all of the military operations. host: an e-mail from new york. guest: this is a huge question. there has been a lot concern about getting to know better who is -- who are the rebels and the libyan transitional council. the french, i have hurt french officials say they are very sure about these people, that they think they are very legitimate opponent of the regime. certainly there are a number of

political stripes when then that group. we do not really know a lot, and that was one of the hesitancies from the united states and all countries about what we're getting ourselves into. any political change is risky, and it was not the clear opposition. it was not like egypt and other countries where there had been clear opposition groups that had been working for years to try to be prepared for one political change came. there is this concern, and i think what you're going to see is an effort to try to develop further understanding of who make sure theyo mak are committed to clear principles, and then try to help them to establish governance and rule of law and security, because no one wants to see a situation like we saw in the early aftermath of the military operations in thiraq.

libyan militaryt was killing the people, the broader population, there will be a need to impose a rule of law and security, and it is not clear who can do that because the muammar gaddafi police and military forces will not be legitimate. host: john, democratic calller. we're talking about nato operations in structure. caller: i want to thank you for c-span radio. we should identify the host before the start of "washington journal." host: got it. caller: the other thing is calller should turn off the tv, not look at it down.

because they look at the tv and they see the mismatch and that confuses them. on nato, i think we should strengthen it and strengthen the united nations. the better way is just as throughout the world -- justice throughout the entire world and forced by human rights. guest: has nato been weakened? guest: i do not think so. i think this is a great opportunity to show that here is the north atlantic treaty organization acting with the support of and blessing of the united nations security council resolution with the support of the arab league and other countries in the region who are concerned about the situation. yes, it is somewhat acting as a military agent of that group, but has the capacity and

recognition in the world but nato is an effective tool for contributing to a broader international security. this is what the new nato mission statement that was agreed to in november, this is what that new mission statement says. it says that nato can still be about protecting the interests of member states but also about to cheer leading to a broader security, particularly in the plac case were you ever broader u.n. mandate. the number of support it that supported this resolution were many. i think this is the really important moment. i agree with what the calller said. and host: john r. republican in louisiana. -- john is a republican in louisiana.

caller: at some point in time you're going to have troops in contact. i have looked at the rag tag army on tv, and i do not think anyone in those organizations will be able to conduct air strikes. how was that being done if you do not have qualified troops on the ground? if they are nato, and here is the united states fighter pilot putting this on, who will stand up and say we made a mistake on this issue? guest: i take your point, and it is certainly true that this fighters are notizer' organized. we have seen evidence that there are libyan special forces, even some of the elite forces that are part of this group. as a whole, they are not well trained. there is an effort underway to give them discipline and training, and effort of some of

the emerging command structures. i have not been in contact with them directly, but i am sure some of the european people and governments have some sense of it. there is an effort. now this question, and issue that has been on the table the past few days, what about training or equipping these forces? there are things that could be done if they are willing to do it, you could have a program of providing equipment and training to these forces. president obama last night and embassador rice has hinted there is security in the u.n. resolution security. it says that the united nations should take all necessary means to protect civilians. they could use that element of the resolution to legitimize certain support to the rebels. as for the u.s. or nato ground

troops, i think that might come sometime in the future, but it may not be necessary. as for who is responsible, at this point it will now be nato. if there are innocent civilians, i think you will see the general secretary general on the tv saying we did make a mistake, but they will be the ultimate responsibility for these operations. host: 10 minutes left. jane, democratic calller. caller: i think the nato countries should contribute more to sponsoring this war. isn't the united states, for the most part sponsoring financially and militarily? and two, i have a statement.

i think we need to quit feeding the war machine in this country. that insome statistics 6000 children went to bed hungry. host: we have to leave it there. we are running out of time. you address this earlier that u.n. countries did not pay an equally. is the u.s. during the most significant investment into this operation? guest: yes. president obama has talked about this. other u.s. officials have said the other nato need to do more -- other nato allies need to do more. germany spends -- is moving close to 1% of gdp on defense. that is one of the measures of burden.

the u.s. contributes disproportionately. that said, even in afghanistan there are 25,000 european troops in afghanistan. those are 25,000 troops and the u.s. has 100,000. that would mean an additional burden to the united states. with all the problems and limitations that governments place on the use, they are still picking up a huge burden in contributing in significant numbers. i am sure there are more joining as this operation ships to nato command and control. host: a tweet for you -- sun city, ariz.. richard, a republican. caller: don't you think it is hypocritical that muammar gaddafi claims to is going to go door to door and that murder

people, and yet iran has been saying we will destroy israel and wipe them off the map and they are trying to go nuclear? what do you think we should do against iran? guest: i think there is a big difference between iranian leaders and what they have been saying about israel, and what muammar gaddafi was actually doing against his people. there is no doubt about it that iran supports terrorism. the u.s. has a strong security relationship with israel. we have important military deployments in the region. frankly one of the reasons the u.s. is engaged in libya is to send a message that if you go after your people, if you try to cause instability in the region, the united states and other members of the international

community are prepared to act. i think right now the international community needs to act against clear violation of acts in prepared to do more. in the case of iran i think it is about preparing for a robust rebellion. host: another tweet for you -- john, cedar rapids, iowa. an independent calller. caller: thank you for c-span. since the bush a administration started the war on terror in the whole world is involved, is a plausible for me to think we are actually involved in world war iii? guest: there are many people that wanted to say that, and the obama administration did not want to call it the war on terrorism, because they wanted to go back to the notion of the

long struggle, because war was not the right metaphor. even george bush said this will be a different kind of war. it will not be one that will end in three or four years. it is a different kind of war. i think war is the wrong metaphor. i think we are involved in a long-term struggle against extremist groups. it will be fought with a variety of means. some of them are trying to win the hearts and minds of people that are prone to violence as a way to overcome as what they see as disadvantages in their economic or political situation. it is going to be a much more multifaceted struggle, but i do not think this is a global struggle right now. each of these conflicts has their own dimension. afghanistan is different from this. iraq was different from this. libya is a different thing than this. go to mario.

noler: cwhy was there proof? we were thrown into iraq with there was weapons of mass destruction, at which there was not. now we're being told that muammar gaddafi is attacking his own people. proof of that. no host: what is the proof? guest: i have been watching a number of television reports, very brave journalists who are out there on the front lines that are there with the rebels in various cities, and i have seen lots of evidence that there is a very violent struggle going on. a number of cities have been under siege. we have seen pictures of ras lanuf with the rebels tried to move back into that area. host: george, a democrat.

in the bronx. caller: i have one question. muammar gaddafi has children, correct? do these children have a mother. the mother of the children as a family. muammar gaddafi -- he has a long history. he was born in libya. that is not the problem. make love, not war. host: we got your point. wichita, kansas. you are next. caller: the obama administration has started this powder keg in the middle east, and the media has helped them. i want to know how stephen flanagan is so sure that the rebels are actually going to be

an ally to the united states. you do not know who the rebels are, yet you attack another country. we are relying on the french to tell us they are good guys. i know you are in the business of obviously war operations in what you do, but how can you be so sure? guest: i think that this is not something that is a powder keg that the west kicked off, it is something muammar gaddafi kicked up. the united states wants to support change in the arab world. this is an enormous opportunity if it goes well. this would be serving our long- term interest to get away from the source of violence. that if we had legitimate governments in the arab middle east, and they may not be exactly close friends of the exactly close friends of the united states,